[TWOIAF Spoilers] Female claimants to the Iron Throne

[Lord Annaly]

Here's how I understand it:

1. The maesters reverse-engineered Robert's claim through his paternal grandmother (a Targ lady).

Why? Aegon was king by conquest, and that was OK - so why not for Robert? Because, I'm gonna say this was the wise Jon Arryn's thinking, it was seen that there's a lot to be gained from claiming continuity with the Targ line.

This, in turn, is because the Targs still had many supporters. After all, the Rebellion wasn't about overthrowing Targs, it was about ending Mad Aerys' reign - everything else that ended up happening was an "oops, how did this happen??" development (the Baratheon white-washers want us to think)

In fact, Yandel expressly says that the Targaryen family tree had been whittled down to just "two lonely branches". There we have it: he is expressly saying that the Baratheons are a "branch" of the Targs (the other branch being Aerys/Rhaella and their kids/grandkids). Recognizing the distaff line (through women) as a "branch" of the family shows their inheritance was always contemplated as a possibility. How fortunate for Robert's claim!

Remember: this book is written for the Baratheon kings. It doesn't hurt to have both a conquest claim, and a "legitimate heir" claim. [ETA: Of course, it's not the claim of THE legitimate heir, because that was our boy Viserys; but if Yandel can establish that inheriting through the female line would have been no problem, then that helps Robert some.]

Finally: this may all be brought up when the realm has to toss up between two possible claimants (Dany or Aegon?). Not that a Great Council will decide between the two in the end, cos there is gonna be a Dance-dance-dance, but it would still make for a cute discussion before Dany applies the Drogon logic to resolve the conundrum.

It was not really reverse engineered because we know that at the time of victory that Ned, Tywin, Jaime or Jon Arryn could also have laid claim to the Throne but they at that time chose Robert because of his Targaryen grandmother.

[naseridrl]

Claim is however you want to spin it at any given moment. If you've got powerful friends who have a vested interest in you they'll help you get by. It worked in Tywin's favour to have an unmarried King so Robert was the choice so he could get Lannister babies next in line. Was Robert already married and Ned not Tywin might have viewed it all very differently.

Nothing is ever set in stone with these things so its easier to manipulate it all when you need it to work how you want it to.

[Jaak]

Claim is however you want to spin it at any given moment. If you've got powerful friends who have a vested interest in you they'll help you get by. It worked in Tywin's favour to have an unmarried King so Robert was the choice so he could get Lannister babies next in line. Was Robert already married and Ned not Tywin might have viewed it all very differently.

Robert was supposed to retrieve and marry Lyanna until long after he had declared for Crown and got it.

[Lord Annaly]

Claim is however you want to spin it at any given moment. If you've got powerful friends who have a vested interest in you they'll help you get by. It worked in Tywin's favour to have an unmarried King so Robert was the choice so he could get Lannister babies next in line. Was Robert already married and Ned not Tywin might have viewed it all very differently.

Nothing is ever set in stone with these things so its easier to manipulate it all when you need it to work how you want it to.

Exactly

[Annara Snow]

Yes and Myrcella is an heir regardless of whether she would become a queen regnant or a queen consort.

In all probability, if Myrcella was in the position of surviving her two brothers she would be considered an heir and then it would be up to whatever support she could garner whether she would inherit in her own right or as a consort or be dismissed completely.

The only way Myrcella becomes queen consort is if she marries someone with a better claim. So, if we consider Robert the rightful king and Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen his trueborn children and heirs, then the only way Myrcella is queen consort is if she marries a man with a better claim, i.e.: Joffrey or Tommen, or, if they're following the Targ law, Stannis or Renly.

...Which was obviously not happening.

Myrcella being an heir is relevant only in terms of the possibility of her becoming a queen regnant, or her children becoming kings or queens. Anyone can become queen consort if they marry the king, that has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of inheritance.

So for the last time....there is no need for readers to get all excited by a line saying "three golden heirs" as it did not mean anything new or any great new inheritance era being ushered in by King Robert, it was just stating the simple fact...all children are heirs.

So why do you keep denying that Myrcella is the heir in each one of your posts? Heirs do not become consorts unless they marry someone with a better claim.

Myrcella is Robert's heir in the sense that she is (presumed to be) his daughter. As such, she will always have 'a claim', but not necessarily a good or a strong claim.

Note that Ned and Littlefinger talk only about Joffrey and Tommen when they discuss Robert's inheritance. Myrcella does not play a role - aside from Littlefinger's suggestion that Ned make peace with the Lannisters and marry Joff to Sansa, and Robb to Myrcella.

Note that they actually do the exact opposite.

“No,” Ned admitted. “I know the secret Jon Arryn was murdered to protect. Robert will leave no trueborn son behind him. Joffrey and Tommen are Jaime Lannister’s bastards, born of his incestuous union with the queen.”

Littlefinger lifted an eyebrow. “Shocking,” he said in a tone that suggested he was not shocked at all. “The girl as well? No doubt. So when the king dies…”

“The throne by rights passes to Lord Stannis, the elder of Robert’s two brothers.”

You may be confusing the books with the show, where they ignored Myrcella in that conversation.

Stannis also does not ignore Myrcella:

“Your Grace.” The maester took up one of the parchments and cleared his throat. “All men know me for the trueborn son of Steffon Baratheon, Lord of Storm’s End, by his lady wife Cassana of House Estermont. I declare upon the honor of my House that my beloved brother Robert, our late king, left no trueborn issue of his body, the boy Joffrey, the boy Tommen, and the girl Myrcella being abominations born of incest between Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime the Kingslayer. By right of birth and blood, I do this day lay claim to the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. Let all true men declare their loyalty. Done in the Light of the Lord, under the sign and seal of Stannis of House Baratheon, the First of His Name, King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men, and Lord of the Seven Kingdoms.” The parchment rustled softly as Pylos laid it down.

[Lord Annaly]

Annara,

You don't understand what being a queen consort can entail also being the heir.

An heiress can become a consort by marriage to someone of lesser claim (or even no claim).

If Myrcella (or any princess) was the sole survivor of Robert's three heirs and was unmarried at the time and her court needed to gather enough strength to put her on the Throne they would have to use a marriage to get that support.

Lets say that princess and her small council were faced with only one option to win and that was marriage to a powerful House and that House was in a strong negotiating position could demand that their lord/son becomes king and so it reduces the new queen to the role of consort.

It is the same with a lordly House, Sansa was treated as the Heir of Winterfell and with her marriage to Tyrion she became his consort. Or her proposed marriage to Willas Tyrell. Or fArya was the consort or Lord Ramsay. Both were considered Ned's heirs and did keep their inheritance by marrying. It is only a thin pillow between Lady of Winterfell as consort and in being ruling.

If the princess was in a strong position she may maintain her own position as regnant but generally the marriage to new ally means assuming the consort role.

So Myrcella could inherit her father's title just as any daughter can but just being a princess is not much different from any noble lady heiress.

The title thus stays tied to the Baratheon royal line. The grandson of King Robert becomes king after his own kingly father dies.

Inheritance comes in many different forms and Myrcella as a consort still means Robert's inheritance is passed on within the family, within his bloodline.

So why do you keep denying that Myrcella is the heir in each one of your posts? Heirs do not become consorts unless they marry someone with a better claim.

And so I don't deny Myrcella is an heir by claiming she could be a consort to inherit.

[Annara Snow]

Annara,

You don't understand what being a queen consort can entail also being the heir.

An heiress can become a consort by marriage to someone of lesser claim (or even no claim).

If Myrcella (or any princess) was the sole survivor of Robert's three heirs and was unmarried at the time and her court needed to gather enough strength to put her on the Throne they would have to use a marriage to get that support.

Lets say that princess and her small council were faced with only one option to win and that was marriage to a powerful House and that House was in a strong negotiating position could demand that their lord/son becomes king and so it reduces the new queen to the role of consort.

It is the same with a lordly House, Sansa was treated as the Heir of Winterfell and with her marriage to Tyrion she became his consort. Or her proposed marriage to Willas Tyrell. Or fArya was the consort or Lord Ramsay. Both were considered Ned's heirs and did keep their inheritance by marrying. It is only a thin pillow between Lady of Winterfell as consort and in being ruling.

If the princess was in a strong position she may maintain her own position as regnant but generally the marriage to new ally means assuming the consort role.

No, it doesn't. It means that Sansa was a hostage/prisoner of the Lannisters, and they tried to use her to try to justify their power grab. She couldn't have any power or ruled anything because she was a hostage. Tyrion also was not able to rule anything, but that's because the Lannisters couldn't actually control the North. If they managed to do so, they would do it but weapons, not because they had any legitimate claim. And Tywin wanted Tyrion to get Sansa pregnant so they would get an heir to Winterfell.

Ditto fArya, except in that case, the Boltons already had Winterfell and were ruling it, since getting it through murdering Robb, making an alliance with Tywin and keeping a bunch of northern highborn people hostage. FArya was just there to give them some sort of feeble justification. They weren't ruling Winterfell because Ramsay had right to it by marrying fArya, they were ruling Winterfell because they were already ruling it, and the northers lords couldn't protest without their family members being killed.

When Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen, she did not become "consort to Daemon" (even though he had some sort of a claim, too, just weaker than her and her younger siblings), he was her consort. For Myrcella to officially become queen consort, she'd have to marry someone with a stronger claim - i.e. one of her brothers, which was obviously not going to happen.

[Lord Varys]

Annara,

Littlefinger mentions her in passing. He seems to consider her having a claim, but it is not a very strong one, or else Ned had named her along with her brothers. They do not discuss her. And Stannis only tells the truth as he sees it. That does not mean that he considers Myrcella a powerful claimant to the Iron Throne.

But I really believe that Myrcella, as any princess from a royal dynasty, be it Targaryen, Velaryon, or Baratheon, can push a claim.

For instance, imagine for a moment that Tommen and Joffrey predecease Robert who rules for thirty years or so, and the paternity of Cersei's children is never called into question. Myrcella has grown up and is married to a son from a powerful family - say, Willas Tyrell. In such a scenario Myrcella could very well inherit the throne, especially since Stannis is very unpopular (and not inclined to turn against the law if he has no reason) and Shireen is, frankly, a disfigured girl who should never be able to rally much support.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

Getting stuck in the minutiae of various peoples' claims is precisely the joke that GRRM is telling here.

Your claim is as true, valid and legit as you can make it. The point is that, no matter how much we discuss, we will not "resolve" the rules of Westerosi succession, because it's fundamentally pragmatic. Rules are set after the fact, in a way that makes the fact seem legit.

As it is in the real world. Maria Theresa (Archduchess of Austria) only inherited because her father got everyone to agree to a treaty called "the Pragmatic Sanction". Before that, she could not have legally inherited a lot of the Habsburg lands as a woman.

The VERY interesting thing is that her father was his own elder brother's heir, but that elder brother had two daughters. When it became clear a woman will inherit, it should have been the elder brother's eldest daughter. But the younger brother ignored that and put his own daughter on the throne.

The War of the Austrian Succession was the fought because everyone who agreed to the Pragmatic Sanction changed their minds. Then they got a bit of Austria in return, and accepted it.

And the whole thing is totally legit - no one ever bothered to question the legitimacy of Maria Theresa's children inheriting. It was even accepted that the House of Habsburg will keep that name (with a hyphen Habsburg-Lothringen).

Rules on inheritance are set in stone. Until that's inconvenient.

[Annara Snow]

Annara,

Littlefinger mentions her in passing. He seems to consider her having a claim, but it is not a very strong one, or else Ned had named her along with her brothers. They do not discuss her. And Stannis only tells the truth as he sees it. That does not mean that he considers Myrcella a powerful claimant to the Iron Throne.

But I really believe that Myrcella, as any princess from a royal dynasty, be it Targaryen, Velaryon, or Baratheon, can push a claim.

For instance, imagine for a moment that Tommen and Joffrey predecease Robert who rules for thirty years or so, and the paternity of Cersei's children is never called into question. Myrcella has grown up and is married to a son from a powerful family - say, Willas Tyrell. In such a scenario Myrcella could very well inherit the throne, especially since Stannis is very unpopular (and not inclined to turn against the law if he has no reason) and Shireen is, frankly, a disfigured girl who should never be able to rally much support.

We're not talking about how powerful her claim is. We haven't been able to discern if she was supposed to have a stronger or weaker claim to her uncles - or whether anyone even bothered to decide that, since they thought Joffrey would succeed Robert, have kids of his own and so on.

The point is, if she's an heir, and she is, that means that, if she ever gets to claim the throne, it will be for herself and/or her children, not for a husband who has no claim of his own, or a much weaker one (say, Trystane Martell). It would be different if Baratheons/Lannisters were Targaryens and they married Myrcella to Tommen to solidify and unite the claims, but obviously it doesn't work like that for non-Targs.

[Lord Annaly]

No, it doesn't. It means that Sansa was a hostage/prisoner of the Lannisters, and they tried to use her to try to justify their power grab. She couldn't have any power or ruled anything because she was a hostage. Tyrion also was not able to rule anything, but that's because the Lannisters couldn't actually control the North. If they managed to do so, they would do it but weapons, not because they had any legitimate claim. And Tywin wanted Tyrion to get Sansa pregnant so they would get an heir to Winterfell.Ditto fArya, except in that case, the Boltons already had Winterfell and were ruling it, since getting it through murdering Robb, making an alliance with Tywin and keeping a bunch of northern highborn people hostage. FArya was just there to give them some sort of feeble justification. They weren't ruling Winterfell because Ramsay had right to it by marrying fArya, they were ruling Winterfell because they were already ruling it, and the northers lords couldn't protest without their family members being killed.When Rhaenyra was proclaimed queen, she did not become "consort to Daemon" (even though he had some sort of a claim, too, just weaker than her and her younger siblings), he was her consort. For Myrcella to officially become queen consort, she'd have to marry someone with a stronger claim - i.e. one of her brothers, which was obviously not going to happen.

As usual you are missing the point.

Even in peace time if Sansa was the sole surviving child of Ned if she married then in all likelyhood she would have inherited Winterfell but as consort to her husband.

If Myrcella was the sole surviving child of Robert there is a highly probable case of her becoming queen consort to her husband to secure her inheritance.

Rhaenyra already had her heirs from her previous marriage so she did not need to offer kingship to her next husband because it would not matter as his children on her would be well down the Line.

Each case is different as we have seen.

But the point still stands that a girl can inherit her father's crown and still only be a queen consort.

If Myrcella does survive Tommen (Maggy's prophecy makes it likely) there is a fair chance whoever tries to crown her may push for a kingship.

It is possible that to secure the support of the Reach that the Lannister camp could agree to it.

Or even more probable the Lannisters may marry her off to another Lannister and make him the first Lannister king.

Thus reducing Myrcella to consort yet securing her inheritance.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

The point is, if she's an heir, and she is, that means that, if she ever gets to claim the throne, it will be for herself and/or her children, not for a husband who has no claim of his own, or a much weaker one (say, Trystane Martell).

That has not been categorically true in the past. "Joint monarchs" were fairly common in European history (where the wife had the claim, but the husband had... the being a man), as was "Rex jure uxoris" ("king by right of his wife"). In both cases, a woman tended to find that her claim was not seen as legitimate at all, unless backed by a man.

And it's not like they were kidding themselves. The legal concept of "jure uxoris" existed specifically to allow a man to claim his wife's title, which title was for whatever reason seen as not being fit for a woman (but OK for a woman to pass it on).

If Myrcella were to survive (ahem), it is not at all impossible that she would connect her claim to the IT with a husband who could support it militarily, and make it easier for the Andals to swallow a Queen by ruling "jointly".

[Lord Varys]

Myrcella would clearly have risen to the Iron Throne as Queen Regnant if Robert had named her his successor, and if she had been backed as such by her family and consort (assuming that she was married by that time).

But there is also a pretty good chance that there would have been a joint rule, a hidden or open usurpation by the consort of his royal wife. Those things happen. Perhaps a Great Council would even name the consort king in place of the woman, just as Joffrey Lydden was in the history of the Westerlands.

[Annara Snow]

That has not been categorically true in the past. "Joint monarchs" were fairly common in European history (where the wife had the claim, but the husband had... the being a man), as was "Rex jure uxoris" ("king by right of his wife"). In both cases, a woman tended to find that her claim was not seen as legitimate at all, unless backed by a man.

And it's not like they were kidding themselves. The legal concept of "jure uxoris" existed specifically to allow a man to claim his wife's title, which title was for whatever reason seen as not being fit for a woman (but OK for a woman to pass it on).

If Myrcella were to survive (ahem), it is not at all impossible that she would connect her claim to the IT with a husband who could support it militarily, and make it easier for the Andals to swallow a Queen by ruling "jointly".

We're not talking about European history, we're talking about the fictional Westeros. Is there anything in the books to suggest that someone could become king simply by marrying a royal princess with the claim to the Iron throne?

The one example we have or a ruling queen, Rhaenyra, suggests otherwise. Daemon did not become the ruling king, even though he had a (weaker) claim. Is there any counter-example?

[Lord Varys]

If just given an example. Joffrey Lydden became King of the Rock in place of his wife, the only child of the previous Lannister king.

Rhaenyra's reign was actually close to a sort of shared rule as Daemon exercised much more than the usual Queen Consorts of Westeros do, acting effectively as the supreme commanders of her armies, which means that he sort of was king in all but name, at least during the war.

Especially since it is stated that he claimed the title of Lord Protector of the Realm - which essentially seems to be a position of nearly equal rank, above the Hand, below the king, and usually held by the monarch's person - rather than being granted this styling.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

We're not talking about European history, we're talking about the fictional Westeros. Is there anything in the books to suggest that someone could become king simply by marrying a royal princess with the claim to the Iron throne?

The one example we have or a ruling queen, Rhaenyra, suggests otherwise. Daemon did not become the ruling king, even though he had a (weaker) claim. Is there any counter-example?

Well don't dismiss GRRM's main sources of inspiration just because they disagree with your view. It's just a bit naive to say "Myrcella should be queen in her own right: here are precedents to prove it" because all everyone would see is a girl who spent her formative years in Dorne of all places. If she showed up with an army, or dragons, different story: all hail queen Myrcella. But that's a pragmatic decision based on the army or the dragons, not her bright shiny claim. Otherwise, she could say she's the queen, and that will be the quickest way to lose her head. You could argue she would die a legitimate queen, for all the comfort she'll get from that.

And bringing up Daemon only goes to the point that inheritance is pragmatic. He had more enemies than friends and no one wanted him as king. When Rhaenyra was crowned, he did keep the "protector of the realm" title for himself - which, given that he was poison for any alliance (being so enemy-rich) was all he could do without destroying Rhaenyra's chances. Had Daemon been better loved, he would have been the key to Rhaenyra's success.

"Vote for me, I'm only a poor woman and my wonderful husband shall rule through me" - even the Andals would have been OK with that.

Instead, a vote for Rhaenyra was a vote for Daemon, who everybody hated. They say as much in the first green council at the start of tPatQ.

[Annara Snow]

Well don't dismiss GRRM's main sources of inspiration just because they disagree with your view. It's just a bit naive to say "Myrcella should be queen in her own right: here are precedents to prove it" because all everyone would see is a girl who spent her formative years in Dorne of all places. If she showed up with an army, or dragons, different story: all hail queen Myrcella. But that's a pragmatic decision based on the army or the dragons, not her bright shiny claim. Otherwise, she could say she's the queen, and that will be the quickest way to lose her head. You could argue she would die a legitimate queen, for all the comfort she'll get from that.

GRRM's sources (who, BTW, can't agree or disagree with anything) are very diverse - real life medieval countries had very different rules of inheritance - and GRRM isn't using every possible rule of every possible country as a model for Westeros. It doesn't make sense to say: "Well, this happened occasionally in real life, so it must also happen in GRRM's fictional world!" I could bring up all those European countries where each son inherited a part of his father's lands and claimed: "Well, this means that second and third sons inherit in Westeros, too!" But that would not mean anything, since GRRM is using the English rules of inheritance.

And bringing up Daemon only goes to the point that inheritance is pragmatic. He had more enemies than friends and no one wanted him as king. When Rhaenyra was crowned, he did keep the "protector of the realm" title for himself - which, given that he was poison for any alliance (being so enemy-rich) was all he could do without destroying Rhaenyra's chances. Had Daemon been better loved, he would have been the key to Rhaenyra's success.

"Vote for me, I'm only a poor woman and my wonderful husband shall rule through me" - even the Andals would have been OK with that.

Instead, a vote for Rhaenyra was a vote for Daemon, who everybody hated. They say as much in the first green council at the start of tPatQ.

So, if they didn't make Daemon the ruling king and Rhaenyra just his consort only because he was unpopular, why wasn't Corlys Velaryon a candidate for the throne? Why was it just Rhaenys and her children, Laenor and Laena, who were considered?

Fact is that there's zero evidence that this was ever practiced or considered for the Iron Throne.

[Colonel Green]

As usual you are missing the point.

Even in peace time if Sansa was the sole surviving child of Ned if she married then in all likelyhood she would have inherited Winterfell but as consort to her husband.

No, that's not remotely true. The ruling ladies in the series (Maege Mormont, Arwyn Oakheart, Anya Waynwood, the unseen Lyessa Flint, and, reaching into the past, Rohanne Webber) run their own shows. To cite a particularly strong example, Daemon Targaryen was married to Rhea Royce, yet she, from what little indicators we have about the arrangement, continued to run Runestone even when her husband was living with her, and he was a dragonrider and a royal prince (hence, one of the reasons he didn't like it there).

It's entirely possible that a female heir might end up basically a pawn of her husband, but that is entirely situational. The plan for Sansa/Tyrion is an extreme example of that, since she was literally a hostage of her husband's family. But there's no reason that the Stark household would invite in some non-Stark to run the place, assuming Ned made clear that Sansa or Arya was the heir and his people were behind the choice.

Female heirs of the non-Mormont type are in some respects more reliant on men than the reverse, for, for instance, matters of soldiering (hence, Daemon being named the leader of Rhaenyra's armies), but that doesn't mean they aren't the leaders of their houses.

But the point still stands that a girl can inherit her father's crown and still only be a queen consort.

The term you're using, "queen consort", is not accurate to what you're describing. A queen consort has no claim of her own, only a claim by marriage. Even with something like Sansa/Tyrion, that is not the case; Tyrion has no rights independent of his wife. He simply, in practice, would be the one exercising his wife's authority, as she was a prisoner. Jure uxoris is not something we see as a common part of Westerosi legal practise; indeed, Westeros, quite unlike most medieval nobles, generall mandates the continuation of house surnames through the female line when need be, to cite one example.

[naseridrl]

No, that's not remotely true. The ruling ladies in the series (Maege Mormont, Arwyn Oakheart, Anya Waynwood, the unseen Lyessa Flint, and, reaching into the past, Rohanne Webber) run their own shows. To cite a particularly strong example, Daemon Targaryen was married to Rhea Royce, yet she, from what little indicators we have about the arrangement, continued to run Runestone even when her husband was living with her, and he was a dragonriding and a royal prince (hence, one of the reasons he didn't like it there).

It's entirely possible that a female heir might end up basically a pawn of her husband, but that is entirely situational. The plan for Sansa/Tyrion is an extreme example of that, since she was literally a hostage of her husband's family. But there's no reason that the Stark household would invite in some non-Stark to run the place, assuming Ned made clear that Sansa or Arya was the heir and his people were behind the choice.

Female heirs of the non-Mormont type are in some respects more reliant on men than the reverse, for, for instance, matters of soldiering (hence, Daemon being named the leader of Rhaenyra's armies), but that doesn't mean they aren't the leaders of their houses.

The term you're using, "queen consort", is not accurate to what you're describing. A queen consort has no claim of her own, only a claim by marriage. Even with something like Sansa/Tyrion, that is not the case; Tyrion has no rights independent of his wife. He simply, in practice, would be the one exercising his wife's authority, as she was a prisoner. Jure uxoris is not something we see as a common part of Westerosi legal practise; indeed, Westeros, quite unlike most medieval nobles, generall mandates the continuation of house surnames through the female line when need be, to cite one example.

I'd add Jonelle Cerwyn to that a well. She becomes Lady of her house after the death of her father and brother. We know she's over 30 so she is likely to be married, but no mention of a husband is made she is the one who matters, who swears fealty etc.

She also accompanies her father I think to Winterfell so maybe with her father and brother going off to war she acts as leader of House Cerwyn although thats only a guess. She's also a lot older than her brother so maybe for a long time was raised as heir and was expected to play an active role in helping her brother early on. But that's all not relevant here.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

Guys - it's all 100% circumstantial. GRRM challenges this romantic view of a very clear-cut heir to the throne, who inherits (woman or otherwise). What we see is that there are moments when this works: the Mormonts, for example. And moments when it fails horribly: like Lady Hornwood (although a widow, not an heir).

The very thing GRRM is mocking is the idea that inheritance is something that happens automatically - and so you can work out the details of how it works and identify the "best" claimant.

In the North, it makes a certain sense to not question inheritance because it might lead to conflict which makes you less prepared for the winter.

In the South, where Andal customs prevail, the "general rule" is that women are not good leaders. BUT, if the circumstances dictate it, a woman claimant may indeed be the best-supported one.

This idea of "claimants" or "rightful claimants" being divorced from the circumstances in which their claim arises is naive.